Chapter II (5)

MR. PRESIDENT,--What is a quorum depends upon the Constitution; but we approach its consideration with the knowledge that in England, the original home of our institutions, and especially of Parliamentary Law, the question, for a long period anterior to the National Constitution, was fixed by usage. Indeed, usage is authority for the larger part of the English Constitution. But in this case of a quorum the usage is liable to alteration. In his elaborate work on the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, the Parliamentary Law on the subject is thus stated by Mr. Cushing:--

“In the British Parliament, according to the ancient and
invariable usage of the two Houses, as evidenced by their
rules, three is the number necessary to constitute a quorum of
the Lords, and forty a quorum of the Commons. These numbers,
respectively, although established by and dependent upon usage
merely, and within the power of each House to abrogate or
change at any time, have, nevertheless, the force of standing
orders; that is, they are equally binding upon every succeeding
Parliament until abrogated, and do not require to be specially
adopted in order to be in force.”[97]

It will be observed that the quorum of the Commons, numbering six hundred and fifty-four persons, is only forty, and this number appears to have been recognized as long ago as 5th January, 1640. At an earlier day more than sixty was required, and as late as March 18, 1801, an attempt was made in the Commons to revive this ancient rule, but it failed. For a short time in 1833 and 1834 the quorum for private business was twenty.[98]

The quorum of the Lords, numbering four hundred and sixty-five, is only three. A spectator at the law sessions of the Upper House is struck by the appearance of the Lord Chancellor on the woolsack, in wig and gown, listening to arguments, with two lay lords, like two lay figures, on the side benches, merely to constitute a quorum so as to legalize the decision of the Chancellor. The origin of this quorum, having the sanction of unbroken usage, is lost in the night of Antiquity. It is probably founded on the ancient maxim of the Roman Law, _Tres faciunt collegium_,--“Three make a _college_,”--the latter word being equivalent, in some respects, to our word _corporation_.

Thus, according to Parliamentary Law, two things appear: first, the quorum of each House is within the control of the House; secondly, it is now, and always has been, in each House, much smaller than a majority.

With us the quorum, in general terms, is fixed by the Constitution. It is not left to usage, or the control of each House; but it is reasonable to infer that any question on the meaning of the Constitution, arising from generality of language, may be interpreted in the light of Parliamentary Law. Indeed, this is only according to the rule under which all technical words in the Constitution are interpreted. For instance, words known to the Common Law or to the English Chancery are interpreted according to the Common Law or the English Chancery. Mr. Wirt, in his admirable argument on the impeachment of Judge Peck, states the rule in these words:--

“The Constitution secures the _trial by jury_. Where do you
get the meaning of a _trial by jury_? Certainly not from the
Civil or Canon Law, or the Law of Nations. It is peculiar
to the _Common Law_; and to the Common Law, therefore,
the Constitution itself refers you for a description and
explanation of this high privilege, _the trial by jury_, and
the mode of proceeding in those trials.… I insist, that, the
moment that _a Court of Common Law_ or _a Court of Equity_ is
established under the authority of the Constitution, its modes
of proceeding and its powers of self-protection arise with
it, and that the _very name_ by which it is called into being
authorizes it to look at once to the English archetypes for its
government in these particulars.”[99]

According to this rule, so clearly enunciated, the words “quorum” and “House,” which are derived from English Parliamentary Law, may be explained by that law; so that, in case of doubt, that law is for this purpose embodied in the Constitution. Now the Constitution declares that _a majority of each House_ shall constitute a quorum to do business. The rule, it will be observed, is the same for each House. But the question arises, What is a majority of each House? or rather, putting aside all question with regard to the House of Representatives, which is perfectly free to determine for itself, What is a majority of the Senate?

In fixing the quorum at a majority rather than any smaller number, our Constitution followed the law of business corporations, where a majority always prevails, according to an old maxim of the Common Law,--_Ubi major pars est, ibi est totum_,--“Where _the greater part_ is, there is the whole.” This rule is so reasonable, that it has been vindicated by an eminent authority as founded on the Law of Nature. Here are the words of the great jurist Savigny:--

“The will of a corporation is not merely the concurring will
of all its members, but even that of the greater number.
Therefore the will of a majority of all its existing members
is to be regarded as being properly invested with the rights
of the corporation. This rule is founded on the Law of Nature,
inasmuch as, if unanimity were demanded, will and action on the
part of a corporation would be quite impossible. It is also
confirmed by the Roman Law.”[100]

Thomas Jefferson, a very different person from the German jurist, has also vindicated the rule.

“The _Lex majoris partis_ is founded in Common Law as well as
common right. It is the natural law of every assembly of men
whose numbers are not fixed by any other law.”[101]

But the question still occurs, What is the major part of the Senate? Is it the major part of the abstract or theoretical Senate, or the major part of the real Senate? In other words, is it the major part of the Senate contemplated by the Constitution, with two Senators from each State, or the major part of the actual Senate, counting only those entitled to vote? At the present moment there is a wide difference between the two cases.

Several clauses of the Constitution are applicable to this question. I group them together.

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for
six years.”

“_A majority of each House_ shall constitute a quorum to do
business.”

“The Congress, whenever _two thirds of both Houses_ shall deem
it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution.”

“A quorum for the purpose [the election of Vice-President]
shall consist of two thirds of _the whole number of Senators_,
and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a
choice.”

Probably “the whole number of Senators” is equivalent to the term “House.” But what is the “House”?

The Senate _de jure_ consists of two Senators from each State.

The Senate _de facto_ may consist of Senators actually elected and qualified, or of Senators actually elected.

Whether the “House” shall be the Senate _de jure_ or the Senate _de facto_ is now within our discretion. The question has been raised, and the way is open to adopt either interpretation, according to the meaning of the Constitution as seen in the light of Parliamentary Law, and, I add also, of convenience.

According to Parliamentary Law, the whole question is in our hands.

According to convenience, the quorum should be founded on the actual Senate, being the Senators actually elected and qualified.

If ever the argument of convenience was strong, peculiarly strong, it is now, when a wicked rebellion has undertaken to withdraw the Senators of eleven States, thus reducing our numbers. It is not necessary to assert that these States should be no longer counted among our stars. It is enough, if we declare that their vacant chairs shall no longer be counted in our quorum. As the language of the Constitution is drawn into debate, I cannot doubt, that, according to Parliamentary Law, the present question is within the control of the Senate, to be determined by the teachings of reason and convenience, so as to assure the public welfare. Any other interpretation must leave the Senate to all the hazards of disorganization by treason, or, it may be, by indifference. If the Senate declines to exercise this power, it will abandon an essential principle of self-defence.

An extreme case might be put, where, through defection, the actual Senators are reduced to a mere handful. But the rule is not to be tried by any such extreme case, which can occur only when the Government is broken up.

I rest confidently on the double conclusion: first, that the words of the Constitution with regard to the quorum of the Senate, so far as doubtful, are to be interpreted by Parliamentary Law; and, secondly, that, by Parliamentary Law, these words are within the control of the Senate, to be interpreted according to its own ample discretion under the exigency of the occasion.

PROTEST AGAINST FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION FOR THE FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE TWO HOUSES, JULY 12, 1862.

July 12th, the question being on the final adjournment for the
Session, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I do not think, in the present state of the country, the Senate ought to adjourn, and for one I enter my protest against it, and I ask for the yeas and nays that I may make it of record.

It is essential to proper legislation not only that the Senate should vote, but that it should consider measures on which it votes; and the consideration must be in proportion to their importance. Allusion is made to one measure on which the Senate has not voted,--that in charge of my friend the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE], the admission of West Virginia as a new State. Perhaps no question of greater importance has ever been presented. It concerns the whole question of Slavery; it concerns the pretension of State Rights; it concerns also the results of this war. Look at it, therefore, in any aspect you please, it is a great question. And yet the idea of Senators anxious to adjourn is, that it is to be hurried forward without any proper discussion.

There is another question, not less important. It is the bill of the Senator from New York [Mr. HARRIS], constituting Provisional Governments for the Rebel States,--a subject of transcendent importance, and I submit, also, of practical interest at this very moment; for it involves precisely this inquiry, Whether you are to allow a system of military governments or Congressional governments. It is a question between the military and the civil power.

Then we have the Army Bill, which my colleague has in charge. Few matters of greater importance have ever been laid before the Senate. It involves nothing less than the organization in our country of a system of conscription, so well known on the Continent of Europe, but thus far happily unknown to us; and yet, Sir, this great question, also, is to be hurried forward without any adequate discussion.

Then we have Executive business, to which I can only allude in a general way, but of vast moment, which cannot be adequately considered without days, and I might say weeks.

Then we have also the whole Calendar, to which the Senator from Illinois has referred, that ought to occupy us for weeks.

Here are at least five important matters,--West Virginia, the Provisional Governments, the Army Bill, Executive business, and the whole Calendar,--all open to consideration; and yet, Sir, Senators propose to go home,--Senators are weary,--Senators would like to find a retreat, away from these legislative cares. I can enter into that feeling. Sir, I should be glad to be at home. I suppose the gallant soldiers on the James River, on the Chickahominy, would also be glad to be at home. They are not excused, they have not a furlough,--and yet we Senators talk of our furlough.

Now it is known that formerly, when Congress was paid by the day, it never thought of adjourning at this time. One of the most important bills on your statute book bears date the 18th day of September, 1850;[102] and for some years immediately thereafter Congress did not adjourn until late in August. I think I have sat myself close upon September; but when I mentioned this fact the other day, the Senator from Ohio reminded me that then Congress was paid by the day, whereas now it is paid by the year. Has it come to this, that Congress could sit here content when paid by the day, and now that it is paid by the year it leaves its important business to be neglected entirely, or to be hurried forward without that discussion which it ought to receive?

Sir, I hope the Senate will not consent to fix any day of adjournment. I hope it will sit here, proceeding regularly with the business now on its Calendar, and meeting any contingencies which in the present state of the country may arise. A duty is cast upon Congress which ought not to be slighted. It is to see that the Republic receives no detriment. Solemnly now this duty addresses itself to all of us. Let us not neglect it. For the sake of the public business, and for the sake of those responsibilities which from their very uncertainty at this crisis are so vast, I ask the Senate to continue here.

The resolution, which was originally for adjournment on Monday,
July 14th, was amended by substituting Wednesday, July 16th,
and then, as amended, adopted,--Yeas 29, Nays 10.

July 14th, President Lincoln communicated to Congress the
draught of a bill to compensate any State which might abolish
Slavery within its limits, the passage of which as presented
he earnestly recommended. On motion of Mr. Sumner, the Message
with the accompanying draught was referred to the Committee
on Finance. Immediately thereafter he offered the following
resolution.

“_Resolved_, That, in order that the two Houses of Congress
may have time for the proper consideration of the Message
of the President and the accompanying bill for Emancipation
in the States, and for the transaction of other public
business, the resolution fixing Wednesday, the 16th of
July, for adjournment, is hereby rescinded.”

The consideration of the resolution was objected to.

PATRIOTIC UNITY AND EMANCIPATION.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT NEW YORK, JULY 14, 1862.

WASHINGTON, July 14, 1862.

DEAR SIR,--I welcome and honor your patriotic efforts to arouse
the country to a generous, determined, irresistible unity in
support of the National Government; but the Senate is still in
session, and my post of duty is here. A Senator cannot leave his
post, more than a soldier.

But, absent or present, the cause in which the people are to
assemble has my God-speed, earnest, devoted, affectionate, and
from the heart. What I can do let me do. There is no work I will
not undertake, there is nothing I will not renounce, if so I may
serve my country.

There must be unity of hands, and of hearts too, that the
Republic may be elevated to the sublime idea of a true
commonwealth, which we are told “ought to be but as one huge
Christian personage, one mighty growth and stature of an honest
man, as big and compact in virtue as in body.”[103] Oh, Sir, if
my feeble voice could reach my fellow-countrymen, in workshops,
streets, fields, and wherever they meet together, if for one
moment I could take to my lips that silver trumpet with tones to
sound and reverberate throughout the land, I would summon all,
forgetting prejudice and turning away from error, to help unite,
quicken, and invigorate our common country--most beloved now that
it is most imperilled--to a compactness and bigness of virtue in
just proportion to its extended dominion, so that it should be as
one huge Christian personage, one mighty growth and stature of an
honest man, instinct with all the concentration of unity. Thus
inspired, the gates of Hell cannot prevail against us.

To this end the cries of faction must be silenced, and the
wickedness of sedition, whether in print or public speech, must
be suppressed. These are the Northern allies of the Rebellion. An
aroused and indignant people, with iron heel, must tread them out
forever, as men tread out the serpent so that it can neither hiss
nor sting.

With such concord God will be pleased, and He will fight for us.
He will give quickness to our armies, so that the hosts of the
Rebellion will be broken and scattered as by the thunderbolt;
and He will give to our beneficent government that blessed
inspiration, better than newly raised levies, by which the
Rebellion shall be struck in its single vulnerable part, by which
that colossal abomination, its original mainspring and present
motive power, shall be overthrown, while the cause of the Union
is linked with that divine justice whose weapons are of celestial
temper.

God bless our country! and God bless all who now serve it with
singleness of heart!

I have the honor to be, dear Sir,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

CHARLES GOULD, Esq., _Secretary of the Select Committee_.

HARMONY WITH THE PRESIDENT AND EMANCIPATION.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE JOINT RESOLUTION EXPLANATORY OF THE ACT FOR CONFISCATION AND LIBERATION, JULY 16, 1862.

While the bill providing for Confiscation and Liberation was
in the hands of the President, and before its signature, it
was understood that he objected to it on certain grounds, one
of which was that under it real estate was forfeited beyond
life. In point of fact, the President had already drawn up a
Message stating his objections to its becoming a law.[104]
In anticipation of these objections, a joint resolution was
adopted, containing the provision, “Nor shall any punishment
or proceedings under said Act be so construed as to work a
forfeiture of the real estate of the offender beyond his
natural life.”[105]

Mr. Sumner did not sympathize with the objections, but, in
his anxiety to secure the approval of the Act as a step
to Emancipation, he did not hesitate to support the joint
resolution.

July 16th, he said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--Our country is in peril. This is much to say, but it must be said, and we must all govern ourselves accordingly. More than ever before, the time has come for an earnest, absolute, controlling patriotism. This is the lesson of the day. In presence of such peril, and under the weight of such duties, there is no pride of opinion which I would not freely sacrifice, nor can I stand on any order of proceeding. I ask no questions, and I make no terms. Show me how an important measure can be secured, which I think vital to the country, and I shall spare no effort to secure it.

Rules are for protection, for defence, and to facilitate business. If in any way they become an impediment, they cease to perform their natural office, and I can easily abandon them, especially when my country may suffer. Therefore, Sir, I am only slightly impressed by the argument that our information with regard to the President is informal. It is enough that a measure we all have at heart as essential to national life may fail to receive his constitutional approval, unless modified in advance by supplementary statute. Anxious for this measure, I think how it may be secured, rather than how the opinions of the President have become known to us.

Of course, Sir, I cannot share the doubts attributed to the President. To me they seem groundless and fallacious. Waiving all question of their accuracy as an interpretation of the Constitution, even in criminal proceedings, I cannot forbear saying that they proceed on the mistaken idea of a procedure by _indictment_ and not by _war_, subjecting the country to all the constraint of a criminal trial when the exigency requires the ample latitude of war. If soldiers are sent forth to battle, if fields are occupied as camps, and houses are occupied as hospitals, without permission of the owners, it is under the War Powers of Congress, or, in other words, the belligerent rights of this Government. And it is by virtue of these same belligerent rights that the property of an enemy is taken. Now, if he be an enemy, is there in the Constitution any check upon these rights? Whether you choose to take property for life or beyond life, the Constitution is indifferent; for all constitutional limitations are entirely inapplicable to belligerent rights. There are express words ordaining that you must not “abridge the freedom of speech or of the press,” or “infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms”; nor can you take “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” And yet, wherever your armies move, and elsewhere too, you do all these very things in the exercise of acknowledged belligerent rights. As plainly, the right of confiscation, whether for life or beyond life, is also yours.

Unhappily, Sir, our country is engaged in war,--terrible, relentless, unquestionable war,--and if we would not discard success, it must be prosecuted as war, in the full exercise of belligerent rights. If we were dealing with sporadic cases of treason, with simple sedition, or with a mere outbreak, our process would be limited by the Constitution; but with an enemy before us, lashed into fury and led on by “Até hot from Hell,” where is the limit to the powers to be employed? I remember that Burke, in his great effort on Conciliation with America, says: “It looks to me to be narrow and pedantic to apply the ordinary ideas of criminal justice to this great public contest; I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against an whole people.”[106] But when, on account of a provision in the Constitution obviously intended only for the protection of _the citizen_, you refuse to take the property of _an enemy in open war_, then do you substitute the safeguards of criminal justice for war, thus voluntarily weakening your armies and diminishing your power. I am tempted to say, that, in devotion to the form of the Constitution, you sacrifice its substance. I might say, that, in misapplying the text of the Constitution, you sacrifice the Constitution itself.

Pardon me for seeming, even briefly, to argue this question. I do it only because I would not have my vote misunderstood. I shall support the proposition, not because I concur with it, but because its adoption will help secure the approval of the bill that has so much occupied the attention of Congress and the hopes of the country.

Mr. President, I have never, from the beginning, disguised my conviction that the most important part of the bill concerns Emancipation. To save this great part, to secure this transcendent ally, to establish this assurance of victory, and to obtain for my country this lofty crown of prosperity and glory, I willingly abandon all the rest. The navigator is called sometimes to save his ship by casting part of the cargo into the sea.

But whatever the difference between the President and Congress, there are two points on which there is no difference. Blacks are to be employed, and slaves are to be freed. In this legislative proclamation the President and Congress will unite. Together they will deliver it to the country and to the world.

It is an occasion of just congratulation, that the long debates of the session have at last ripened into a measure which I do not hesitate to declare more important than any victory achieved by our arms. Thank God, the new levies will be under an inspiration which cannot fail. It is the idea of Freedom, which, in spite of all discomfiture, past or present, must give new force to the embattled armies of the Republic, making their conflicts her own.

Sir, from this day forward the war will be waged with new hopes and new promises. A new power is enlisted, incalculable in influence, strengthening our armies, weakening the enemy, awakening the sympathies of mankind, and securing the favor of a benevolent God. The infamous Order No. 3, which has been such a scandal to the Republic, is rescinded. The slave everywhere can hope. Beginning to do justice, we shall at last deserve success.

The original bill and the explanatory joint resolution were
returned to the Senate together, with the approval of the
President, July 17th, being the last day of the session, and
just before its close.

UNION OF GOOD CITIZENS FOR A FINAL SETTLEMENT.

LETTER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE COMMITTEE, SEPTEMBER 9, 1862.

At the Republican State Convention at Worcester, September
10th,[107] Mr. Claflin, Chairman of the State Committee, read
the following letter from Mr. Sumner, which, according to the
report, was received with great applause.

BOSTON, September 9, 1862.

MY DEAR SIR,--As a servant of the State, I have always recognized
the right of my constituents in State Convention to expect from
me such counsels on public affairs as I could offer, and I have
accepted with gratitude the invitations with which they have
honored me. If now, in these dark days, when danger thickens, I
do not take advantage of the opportunity you present, believe me,
it is not from indifference, nor is it because our duties at this
moment are uncertain.

Eagerly do gallant soldiers (God bless them!) rush to the field
of death for the sake of their country. Eagerly do good citizens
at home (God bless them!) contribute of their abundance, or
it may be of their poverty, to smooth the lot of our gallant
soldiers. But there is another duty, hardly less commanding. It
is union, without distinction of party, to uphold the Government,
and also to uphold those who uphold the Government. Therefore do
I recognize the just liberality of the call for our Convention,
which is addressed not only to Republicans, but also to “all
who support the present National and State Governments and are
in favor of the use of all means necessary for the effectual
suppression of the Rebellion.” Under such a call there is no
patriot citizen of the Commonwealth who may not claim a place.

Is there a patriot citizen who hesitates to support the National
Government, beleaguered by a rebel enemy?

Is there a patriot citizen who hesitates to support the State
Government, now, under the inspiring activity and genius of John
A. Andrew, so efficiently sustaining the National Government?

And is there a patriot citizen who is not for the use of all
means necessary for the effectual suppression of the Rebellion?

Were I able to be at the Convention, according to the invitation
with which you honor me, gladly would I appeal to all such
citizens. This country must be saved; and among the omens of
victory I hail confidently that unanimity of sentiment and
trust with which all loyal citizens now look to the National
Government, determined that nothing of energy or contribution
or sacrifice shall be wanting, by which its supremacy may be
reëstablished. Another omen is yet needed. It is that the people,
forgetting the past, shall ascend to that plane of justice
and truth where is the light of candor, and all shall frown
indignantly upon the rancors and animosities of party, which
even now are so disturbing in their influence, shall silence the
senseless prejudices of personal hate, and stifle the falsehoods
of calumny, so that here among ourselves there may be unity and
concord, giving irresistible strength to our patriotic labors.

Beyond this appeal from heart to heart, I should rejoice to show
clearly _how to hamstring this Rebellion and to conquer a peace_,
all of which I am sure can be done. To this _single practical
purpose_ all theories, prepossessions, and aims must yield. So
absorbing at the present moment is this question, that nothing is
practical which does not directly tend to its final settlement.
All else is blood-stained vanity. And the citizen soldiers you
send forth to battle may justly complain, if you neglect any
means by which they may be strengthened. Good Democrats, who
have enjoyed the confidence of their party and also public
trust,--Daniel S. Dickinson, of New York, and Robert Dale Owen,
of Indiana,--bear their generous testimony. So also does Parson
Brownlow, of Tennessee, in a letter which I have just read, where
he says that the negroes “must be urged in every possible way to
crush out this infernal Rebellion.” Butler bore his testimony,
when, by virtue of an outstanding order of the Rebel Governor
of Louisiana, he organized a regiment of colored persons in
the national service. Banks also symbolized the idea, when,
overtaking the little slave-girl on her way to Freedom, he lifted
her upon the national cannon. In this act--the brightest, most
touching, and most suggestive of the whole war, which Art will
hereafter rejoice to commemorate--our Massachusetts general gave
a lesson to his country. Who can doubt that the country will yet
be saved?

I hope you will excuse me to my fellow-citizens of the
Convention, and believe me, with much regard,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO HON. WM. CLAFLIN, _Chairman of State Committee_.

THE PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION:

ITS POLICY AND NECESSITY AS A WAR MEASURE FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION.

SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, OCTOBER 6, 1862. WITH APPENDIX, ON THE NOMINATION AND REËLECTION OF MR. SUMNER AS SENATOR.

A patriot’s blood,
Well spent in such a strife, may earn, indeed,
And for a time insure to his loved land,
The sweets of Liberty and Equal Laws.

COWPER, _The Task_, Book V. 714-717.

* * * * *

I assure you,
He that has once the Flower of the Sun,
The perfect ruby which we call Elixir,
Not only can do that, but by its virtue
Can confer Honor, Love, Respect, Long Life,
Give Safety, Valor,--yea, and Victory,--
To whom he will.

BEN JONSON, _The Alchemist_, Act II. Sc. 1.

* * * * *

Rendez-les libres,--et plus près que vous de la nature, ils
vaudront beaucoup mieux que vous.--CONDORCET, _Note 109 aux
Pensées de Pascal_.

* * * * *

When a leak is to be stopped, or a fire extinguished, do not
all hands coöperate without distinction of sect or party? Or if
I am fallen into a ditch, shall I not suffer a man to help me
out, until I have first examined his creed?--BISHOP BERKELEY,
_A Word to the Wise, or an Exhortation to the Roman Catholic
Clergy of Ireland_: Works (London, 1837), p. 360.

* * * * *

May Congress not say that every black man must fight? Did we
not see a little of this last war?… Have they not power to
provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not
think that these call for the abolition of Slavery? May they
not pronounce all slaves free? And will they not be warranted
by that power? This is no ambiguous implication or logical
deduction. The paper speaks to the point.--PATRICK HENRY.
_Debates in the Virginia Convention on the Adoption of the
Federal Constitution_: Elliot’s Debates, Vol. III. p. 590.

* * * * *

The natural strength of the country, in point of numbers,
appears to me to consist much more in the blacks than in
the whites. Could they be incorporated and employed for its
defence, it would afford you double security. That they would
make good soldiers I have not the least doubt.--MAJOR-GENERAL
NATHANAEL GREENE, _Letter to Governor Rutledge_: Johnson’s Life
of Greene, Vol. II. p. 274.

* * * * *

The anxiety which prevailed so extensively was restored by
the Proclamation of Emancipation, at last put forth by the
President, September 22, 1862. Besides enjoining obedience
to the Acts of Congress already passed against Slavery, it
declared:--

“That, on the first day of January in the year of our Lord
one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons
held as slaves within any State or designated part of
a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion
against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward,
and forever free; and the Executive Government of the
United States, including the military and naval authority
thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such
persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such
persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for
their actual freedom.”[108]

The work was completed by the final proclamation of January 1,
1863.[109]

There was an echo to these proclamations throughout the
country, and also from the Rebel States. The _Richmond Whig_
said of the first: “It is a dash of the pen to destroy four
millions of our property, and is as much as a bid for the
slaves to rise in insurrection, with the assurance of aid from
the whole military and naval power of the United States.” In
another article, it spoke of “the fiends of the new programme.”
These feelings, after debate in the Rebel Congress, found vent
in the following terms.

“That, in the judgment of Congress, the proclamations of
the President of the United States, dated respectively
September twenty-second, eighteen hundred and sixty-two,
and January first, eighteen hundred and sixty-three,
and the other measures of the Government of the United
States, and of its authorities, commanders, and forces,
designed or tending to emancipate slaves in the Confederate
States, or to abduct such slaves, or to incite them to
insurrection, or to employ negroes in war against the
Confederate States, or to overthrow the institution of
African Slavery and bring on a servile war in these States,
would, if successful, produce atrocious consequences, and
they are inconsistent with the spirit of those usages
which in modern warfare prevail among civilized nations;
they may, therefore, be properly and lawfully repressed by
retaliation.”[110]

The earlier proclamation caused a thrill in Massachusetts.
Earnest people, who had longed for it, were rejoiced and
comforted. At the invitation of his fellow-citizens, Mr. Sumner
consented to address them at Faneuil Hall, in response to the
proclamation.

The proceedings at this crowded meeting, which was held at
noon, are copied from the newspapers of the day.

The meeting was called to order by George S. Hale, Esq.,
Chairman of the Ward and City Committee, who submitted the
following list of names for the officers of the meeting.

_President_,--William Claflin, of Newton.

_Vice-Presidents_,--Francis B. Crowninshield, Alexander H.
Bullock, Julius Rockwell, Peleg W. Chandler, Oakes Ames, John
Gardner, Lee Claflin, Robert W. Hooper, James M. Barnard,
Francis B. Fay, Jacob Sleeper, Edward S. Tobey, Stephen H.
Phillips, Waldo Higginson, Samuel May, John Nesmith, William
J. Rotch, Eliphalet Trask, Martin Brimmer, Henry I. Bowditch,
Gerry W. Cochrane, Charles H. Parker, Charles O. Whitmore,
John D. Baldwin, John R. Brewer, John M. S. Williams, James
P. Thorndike, Samuel Hall, Artemas Lee, Robert B. Storer,
Julius A. Palmer, John L. Emmons, William I. Bowditch, Abel G.
Farwell, Alvah Crocker, Otis Norcross, John J. May, Phineas E.
Gay, Nathan Cushing, Robert C. Pitman, Alexander H. Twombly,
Warren Sawyer, James Adams, Moses Kimball, Theodore Otis, Alvah
A. Burrage, David Snow, Edwin Lamson, John Demeritt, John M.
Forbes, William Washburn, Arba Maynard, Joseph T. Bailey,
Osborn Howes, Daniel Farrar, John Chandler, John Q. A. Griffin,
Robert E. Apthorp, William Bellamy, Alexander Wadsworth,
Edward Buffinton, Nehemiah Boynton, Phineas J. Stone, William
B. Spooner, Frederick Nickerson, P. Emory Aldrich, Abijah W.
Farrar, William Pope, Charles C. Barry, Timothy W. Hoxie, Avery
Plumer, Ephraim Allen, J. Warren Merrill, Peter B. Brigham,
George F. Williams, Pliny Nickerson, John A. Nowell, Arthur
W. Tufts, Roland Worthington, John Bertram, Frank B. Fay, J.
Ingersoll Bowditch, William Endicott, Jr., Edward Atkinson,
Nathaniel C. Nash, Franklin Snow, J. Wingate Thornton, Samuel
Johnson, Edward A. Raymond, Albert L. Lincoln, Francis E.
Parker, Charles O. Rogers, William Fox Richardson, John G.
Webster, Leister M. Clark, Chester Guild, Jr., Estes Howe,
William Brigham.

_Secretaries_,--William S. Robinson, Delano A. Goddard, Stephen
N. Stockwell, William W. Clapp, Jr., Hamlin R. Harding, H.
Burr Crandall, Henry M. Burt, Ebenezer Nelson, George H.
Monroe, Stephen N. Gifford.

On taking the chair, Mr. Claflin was received with great
applause. He spoke as follows.

“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,--None of you can be more
disappointed at the present time than myself, that I am
called upon to occupy this position.

“At the last moment we were informed that his Excellency
the Governor[111] was compelled by the duties of his
position, and his desire ever to do for the interests of
those brave men who have gone forth for our defence, to
leave the State, and to leave us to-day in your hands.
[_Applause._]

“Under these circumstances, and at the last moment, by the
desire of the Committee of Arrangements, I consented to
occupy this position; but you will, of course, excuse me
from making any remarks on this occasion. My heart is in
the cause. This is a great era, and this is the time when
every man should come up to the work and fight for this
nation, doing everything which he can, whether by his purse
or his sword, to sustain the Government. [_Cheers._]

“Thanking you for the honor you have conferred upon me, I
now await any motion which may be made.”

Resolutions sustaining Emancipation were then read by Charles
W. Slack, and, amidst cries of “Good!” and great applause, were
adopted.

The President then said:--

“I now introduce to you Massachusetts’--ay,
Boston’s--honored son. I need not praise him, I need not
eulogize him; but I will simply say, it is CHARLES SUMNER.”

The enthusiasm that followed Senator Sumner’s stepping on the
platform was not surpassed by anything that has been seen in
the Hall since Senator Webster took the same place on _his_
return from Washington years ago. The air below was dark with
waving hats, and along the galleries white with fluttering
kerchiefs. When the applause subsided, a colored man cried out,
“God bless Charles Sumner!” in an earnest, trembling, “tearful”
voice, and the applause was renewed.

The meeting is described as “of much enthusiasm on the part
of the overflowing audience that gathered and tried to gather
within the ancient walls.”

A few sentences from the London _Morning Star_ will show how
this effort was recognized at a distance.

“The Massachusetts Senator has lately had a meeting with
his constituents. Fragments and summaries of his speech
at Faneuil Hall have found their way into most English
newspapers. Let the sympathizers with the South produce,
if they can, from their side of Mason and Dixon’s line,
any utterance to compare with it in all the qualities that
should commend human speech to human audience.…

“This representative of a powerful community addresses
to his fellow-citizens considerations upon the conduct
of a war in which they and he are more deeply interested
than any English constituency has been in any war which
England has waged since the days of Cromwell. It is such
a speech as Hampden might have spoken in Buckinghamshire,
or Pym in the Guildhall. It treats both of principles and
policy,--of the means of success, and of the ends which can
alone sanctify the struggle or glorify success. It breathes
throughout the spirit of justice and of freedom.…

“Throughout his public life, Mr. Sumner has held the same
doctrines, expressed the same spirit.… He is the leader
of a party, as well as the representative of the first
New England State, and Chairman of the Foreign Affairs
Committee of Congress. Too advanced a thinker and too
pure a politician for office in a Cabinet undecided on
the Slavery Question, he has pioneered its way and shaped
its conclusions. Is he not a man whose name should check
the blustering apologists of Slavery and Secession?… The
Rebellion is just such a blow at the Union as Preston
Brooks struck at Charles Sumner; and yet there are English
hands and voices to applaud the deed, as worthy heroes of
patriotism and civilization.”

In urging Emancipation, Mr. Sumner always felt, that, besides
sustaining the cause of justice, he was helping our country
with foreign nations.

SPEECH.

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS:--

Meetings of the people in ancient Athens were opened with these words: “May the gods doom to perdition that man, and all his race, who, on this occasion, shall speak, act, or contrive anything against the Commonwealth!” With such an imprecation all were summoned to the duties of the citizen. But duties become urgent in proportion to perils. If ever there were occasion for these solemn words, it is now, when the country is in danger, when the national capital itself is menaced, when all along the loyal border, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Indian Territories west of the Mississippi, barbarian hordes, under some Alaric of Slavery, are marshalling forces, and death is knocking at the doors of so many happy homes. If ever there was occasion when country might claim the best and most self-forgetful effort of all, it is now. Each in his way must act. Each must do what he can: the youthful and strong by giving themselves to the service; the weak, if in no other way, by scraping lint. Such is the call of patriotism. The country must be saved.

* * * * *

Among omens which I hail with gladness is the union now happily prevailing among good men in support of the Government, whether State or National,--forgetting that they were Democrats, forgetting that they were Whigs, and disregarding old party names, to remember only the duties of the citizen. Another sign, not less cheering, is the generous devotion which all among us of foreign birth offer to their adopted country. Germans fight as for fatherland, and Irishmen fight as for loved Erin; nor can our cause be less dear to the latter, now that the spirit of Grattan and O’Connell has entered into it.

* * * * *

Surely this is no time for the strife of party. Its jealousies and antipathies are now more than ever irrational. Its clamors of opposition are now more than ever unpatriotic. Unhappily, there are some to whom its bitter, unforgiving temper has become so controlling, that, even at this moment, they would rather enlist to put down a political opponent than to put down the rebel enemy of their country,--they would rather hang Henry Wilson or John A. Andrew than hang Jefferson Davis or Robert Toombs. Such persons, with all their sweltered venom, are found here in Massachusetts. Assuming the badge of “No Party,” they are ready for any party, new or old, by which their prejudices may be gratified,--thus verifying the pungent words of Colonel Benton: “Wherever you will show me a man with the words ‘No Party’ in his mouth, I will show you a man that figures at the head or dangles at the tail of the most inveterate party that ever existed.” Of course, such persons are not expected to take part in a meeting like the present, which seeks to unite rather than divide, while it rallies all to the support of the President, and to that policy of Freedom he has proclaimed.

Thank God that I live to enjoy this day! Thank God that my eyes have not closed without seeing this great salvation! The skies are brighter and the air is purer now that Slavery is handed over to judgment.

By the proclamation of the President, all persons held as slaves January 1, 1863, within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. Beyond these most effective words, which do not go into operation before the new year, are other words of immediate operation, constituting a present edict of Emancipation. The President recites the recent Acts of Congress applicable to this question, and calls upon all persons in the military and naval service to observe, obey, and enforce them. But these Acts provide that all slaves of Rebels, taking refuge within the lines of our army, all slaves captured from Rebels or deserted by them, and all slaves found within any place occupied by Rebel forces and afterwards occupied by forces of the United States, shall be forever free of servitude, and not again held as slaves; and these Acts further provide, that no person in the military or naval service shall, under any pretence whatever, assume to decide on the validity of any claim to a slave, or surrender any such person to his claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service: so that by these Acts, now proclaimed by the President, Freedom is practically secured to all who find shelter within our lines, and the glorious flag of the Union, wherever it floats, becomes the flag of Freedom.

* * * * *

Thank God for what is already done, and let us all take heart as we go forward to uphold this great edict! For myself, I accept the Proclamation without note or comment. It is enough for me, that, in the exercise of the War Power, it strikes at the origin and mainspring of this Rebellion; for I have never concealed the conviction that it matters little where we strike Slavery, provided only that we strike sincerely and in earnest. So is it all connected, that the whole must suffer with every part, and the words of the poet will be verified, that,--

“whatever link you strike,
Tenth or ten thousandth, breaks the chain alike.”

On this most interesting occasion, so proper for gratitude, it is difficult to see anything but the cause; and yet, appearing before you on the invitation of a Committee of the Commonwealth, I must not forget that I owe this privilege to my public character as Senator of Massachusetts. In this character I have often been invited before; but now the invitation has more than accustomed significance; for, at the close of a long period of public service, it brings me face to face with my constituents. In a different condition of the country, I could not decline the opportunity of reviewing the relations between us,--of showing, at least, how you took me from private station, all untried, and gave me one of your highest trusts, and how this trust was enhanced by the generosity with which you sustained me against obloquy and vindictive assault, especially by your unparalleled indulgence to me throughout a protracted disability,--and perhaps, might I be so bold, of presenting for your consideration some sketch of what I have attempted, conscious, that, if not always successful, I have been at all times faithful to cherished convictions, and faithful also to your interests, sparing nothing of time or effort, and making up by industry for any lack of ability, so that, during a service of more than eleven years, I have never once visited home while Congress was in session, or been absent for a single day, unless when suffering from that disability to which I have referred, and during the session which has just closed, filled with most laborious duties from beginning to end, I was not out of my seat a single hour. But this is no time for such a review. I have no heart for it, while my country is in danger. And yet I shall not lose the occasion to challenge the scrutiny of all, even here in this commercial metropolis, where the interests of business are sometimes placed above all other interests. Frankly and fearlessly I make my appeal. In all simplicity, I ask you to consider what I have done as your servant, whether in the Senate or out of the Senate, in matters of legislation or of business. If there is any one disposed to criticize or complain, let him be heard. Let the whole record be opened, and let any of the numerous visitors who have sought me on business testify. I know too well the strength of my case to shrink from any inquiry, even though stimulated by the animosity of political warfare.[112]

But there are two accusations, often repeated, to which I reply on the spot; and I do so with less hesitation, because the topics are germane to this debate. The first is, that from my place in the Senate I early proclaimed Slavery to be Barbarism. Never shall the cause of Freedom go by default, if I can help it; and I rejoice, that, on that occasion, in presence of the slaveholding conspirators vaunting the ennobling character of Slavery, I used no soft words. It is true, that, in direct reply to most offensive assumptions, I proclaimed Slavery barbarous in origin, barbarous in law, barbarous in all its pretensions, barbarous in the instruments it employs, barbarous in consequences, barbarous in spirit, barbarous wherever it shows itself,--while it breeds barbarians, and develops everywhere, alike in the individual and the society to which he belongs, the essential elements of barbarism. It is true, that, on the same occasion, I portrayed Slavery as founded in violence and sustained only by violence, and declared that such a wrong must, by sure law of compensation, blast the master as well as the slave, blast the land on which they live, blast the community of which they are part, blast the government which does not forbid the outrage, and the longer it exists, and the more completely it prevails, must its blasting influence penetrate the whole social system. Was I not right? Since then the testimony is overwhelming. A committee of the Senate has made a report, extensively circulated, on the barbarities of this Rebellion. You know the whole story to which each day testifies. It is in some single incident that you see the low-water mark of social life; and I know nothing in which the barbarism of Slavery is more completely exhibited than in the fate of our brave soldiers, dug up from honorable graves, where at last they had found rest, that their bones might be carved into keepsakes and their skulls into drinking-cups to gratify the malignant hate of Slave-Masters.

The other accusation is similar in character. It is said that I have too often introduced the Slavery Question. At this moment, seeing what Slavery has done, I doubt if you will not rather say that I have introduced it too seldom. If, on this account, I neglected any single interest of my constituents, if I was less strenuous whenever foreign relations or manufactures or commerce or finances were involved, if I failed to take my part in all that concerns the people of Massachusetts and in all embraced within the manifold duties of a Senator, then, indeed, I might be open to condemnation. But you will not regret that your representative, faithful in all other things, was ever constant and earnest against Slavery, and that he announced from the beginning the magnitude of the question, and our duties with regard to it. Say what you will, the slave is the humblest and the grandest figure of our times. What humility! what grandeur! both alike illimitable! In his presence all other questions are so petty, that for a public man to be wrong with regard to him is to be wholly wrong. How, then, did I err? The cause would have justified a better pertinacity than I can boast. In the Senate of Rome, the elder Cato, convinced that peace was possible only by the destruction of Carthage, concluded all his speeches, on every matter of debate, by the well-known words: “But whatever you may think of the question under consideration, this I know, Carthage must be destroyed.” I have never read that the veteran Senator was condemned for the constancy of his patriotic appeal. With stronger reason far, I, too, might always have cried, “This I know, Slavery must be destroyed,”--_Delenda est Servitudo_. But, while seeking to limit and constrain Slavery, I never proposed anything except in strictest conformity with the Constitution; for I always recognized the Constitution as my guide, which I was bound in all respects to follow.[113]

Such are accusations to which I briefly reply. Now that we are all united in the policy of Emancipation, they become of little consequence; for, even if I were once alone, I am no longer so. With me are the loyal multitudes of the North, now arrayed by the side of the President, where, indeed, I have ever been.

* * * * *

If you will bear with me yet longer in allusions which I make with reluctance, I would quote, as my unanswerable defence, the words of Edmund Burke, when addressing his constituents at Bristol.